Amazon is not offering the full text online. They are offering short passages from the full text based on full text searches. I'm sure if you try to search for "the" or make too many searches on the same book during too short a period of time your request will be denied.
Perhaps not. Or perhaps we'd just have a lot more hardware companies supporting Linux directly, instead of making us jump through hoops reverse engineering drivers.
It's a chicken and egg problem. You need drivers to get users, but once you have users you'll get the drivers.
The article says "how can 50 million people (over 200 million worldwide) be wrong?" It doesn't say what those 50 million people have done, and it certainly doesn't explain its methodology of arriving at that number.
Now if you're saying that I haven't personally researched the numbers, and relied on the statistics cited by the expert author, you're right.
You have not relied on statistics cited by an expert author. That is not a statistic. It is a rhetorical question, which by the way assumes something incorrect (50 million people most certainly can be wrong).
I've [you've] applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA.
I'm going to torture an analogy here--that's like saying the only travelers threatened by terrorists are the ones whose planes blew up. Everyone who files is threatened.
Certainly not everyone. I have used a P2P network in the past. But I am not threatened by the RIAA. And I'm certainly not going to stop buying CDs from them, since I already stopped several years ago.
Similarly, those using file sharing are all threatened even though the RIAA only has the resources to sue a few.
I agree with you that everyone in the class of people who are being sued by the RIAA are being threatened, not only those who are actually sued. But there are many outside of that class. Those who no longer use the P2P networks. Those who only trade legitimate files. Those who only trade bootlegs. Those who only trade non-RIAA music. Those who only trade porn or software or other non-music. Those who only download. Those outside the United States.
And then of those who are left, not all of them will reduce the number of CDs they buy. Some, like myself, got fed up with the RIAA and stopped buying CDs years ago (that might be why they're using P2P in the first place). Some will be convinced that they were stealing and will simply stop doing so now that the free-for-all is over (yes, I disagree that copyright infringement is stealing, but that doesn't mean that some people won't believe that anyway). Yes, some will reduce the number of CDs they sell. Some will stop buying CDs completely. But my gut tells me this last number will be very low. After all, the RIAA has done plenty of things for us to hate them about already in the past. I doubt this one thing is going to change peoples' opinions of it.
So you say that filesharing has legal purposes in a substantial number of cases? I agree!
Sure. Of course it does.
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Again, you haven't shown this to not be the case. And, though a guess, it certainly isn't a wild-assed one.
You're right. I haven't proven you wrong. I can't. All I can do is offer anecdotes and analogies. I certainly believe that your one fewer CD in the next decade average is inaccurate. Personally I feel that the number of CDs people will buy will probably go up because of this, not down.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
Again, you're saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members.
No, I'm saying of all the people who have ever used P2P, most don't currently regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm not saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members, though that probably is the case if you consider that bootlegs are generally not copyrighted by the record companies.
But you haven't shown the numbers are misapplied.
You've applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA. That's a misapplication. Further, you never even bothered to back up the number of people who have ever used P2P networks.
Just realize that you have given absolutely no support to your assertion that "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank."
And I've given plenty of assertion. Either 10,000,000 (your number) or 50,000,000 people use file sharing, according to different estimates by those who have studied the field extensively for publication. The RIAA has declared war publicly on these people, either by proxy (downloaders) or directly (uploaders).
Having used file sharing at least once in your life is not equivalent to downloading or uploading files copyrighted by RIAA members.
Either number is a substantial segment of the market.
Only if there is a significant overlap between the people who illegally use P2P and those who actually buy CDs. You have not shown this to be the case.
Even if each of these people on average are swayed to by one less CD in the next decade, the sales are "really going to tank."
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Can I say with absolute certainty what the result of their actions will be? No. But neither can you, and the numbers don't look good for the RIAA.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
5 or 6 people was obviously an exaggeration. As for pulling numbers from thin air, do you have any numbers published by experts or journalists about how many people will be alienated by this? Obviously we can only speculate. But it seems you're not interested in discussing this any more. Perhaps you were just trolling me along in the first place. Just realize that you have given absolutely no support to your assertion that "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank."
We're picking nits over numbers in the same order of magnitude. 10E6 or 50E6 is still a hell of a lot of people.
Sure, if you count every person who has ever used Kazaa, it's a lot of people. Now if you restrict it to those who regularly trade RIAA copyrighted material on Kazaa, the numbers go way way down. If you leave only the ones who are truly threatened by the RIAA's legal tactics, now the numbers are barely recognizable. Now subtract the ones who already believe that copyright infringement is wrong. Now subtract from those people the ones who wouldn't have bothered buying CDs anyway. There aren't many people left who are being alienated.
And the RIAA's actions aren't just alienating the "felon" uploaders--you think the people who can't find their out of print material because the chilling effect aren't going to be upset, too?
I'm not sure exactly what material you're talking about. Songs copyrighted by RIAA-affiliated record companies which are no longer being distributed? Do you really the RIAA is going to go after people trading those songs? I have to admit, I'm not very familiar with such songs, so I don't know whether or not they're even being traded on Kazaa in the first place. Are they? And what kinds of numbers are we talking about here? 5 or 6 people?
Because if you cut the hours that an employee in profession X can work, and there are no more qualified X'ers in the economy, then less of X gets done.
I thought it would just mean that more people would get qualified for profession X. OK, sure, there's going to be a transition period, but that's just an implementation detail.
If you restrict the amount of X that gets done, it has a knock-on effect onto Y and Z too.
Even if this is true, which is an arguable point, how is getting less of X, Y, and Z done equivalent to failure?
I mean, OK, I agree that a maximum work week wouldn't be a legitimate thing for a government to force upon people. But that's a lot different from saying it would be a bad thing, or that it wouldn't work. It would be a bad thing for those who want to work hard most of the time and live extravagantly the rest. It would be a good thing for those who'd rather work less and enjoy life more, though perhaps not as extravagantly.
So, the result is that a lot of extra latency is introduced into the economy, slowing everything down.
Perhaps if it's strictly enforced. But surely temporary exceptions could be made.
This increases unemployment, because less work being done means less demand for supporting work to be done, and so on.
If it increases unemployment, then you've set the maximum too high. Lower the max and spread out the people even more.
Personally I'd prefer 10 or 20 hours. But then you'd have to raise the minimum wage. $50-100 a week is not exactly something one can reasonably live off.
The idea was that if you restrict the numbers of hours people worked, the companies would be forced to hire more people. That might work in an economy where people are interchangeable - for example, unskilled or semi-skilled labourers can move freely from farm to factory. Unfortunately, it can't work in a modern economy in which workers are specialists.
Umm, maybe it's supposed to be obvious, but... Why not?
Rather than reducing unemployment, it reduced economic activity across the board.
This happened in France and Germany, so you claim. But two examples hardly allow someone to conclude that something "can't work," especially when there were millions of other factors involved in each of the examples.
1) 50 million people is not most of them. 2) There are not 50 million users trading illegal files on P2P networks. Maybe 10 million. Maybe. 3) Downloading is not a felony. Distributing is. Most users download but do not distribute.
I never said the analogy was perfect. However, you made the following assertion: "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank." I fail to see how you have tied the difference between the two to the flaw in the analogy. After all, every analogy has some flaw in it somewhere.
The scarcity of theatre seats is based on natural law, the scarcity of digital media on man-made constraints that are naturally overcome.
The scarcity of theatre seats is not based on natural law. There are some aspects of it which have been forced into such a situation, but you're not paying $8 for a seat in a building, you're paying $8 for the rights to watch a film.
It's not, but once they know who I am they could harrass me based on the info they got.
So? You want to ban information just because it might be used in a slightly annoying manner? I don't get it.
Uh...yeah...for a line workder at Delta as in my example, I'm sure they will be griping on 3DES message boards.
I stand by my assertion. This doesn't scare me at all. Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that some theoretical person could in theory be scared by such a thing, but I'm not one of those theoretical people. But then again, if I'm dissatisfied with my employer I'm going to speak to my manager and/or quit. I'm not going to hide behind some Anonymous Coward account and post it to the internet. I'm tempted to say that anyone who does that shit deserves to be fired.
When someone copies something, there isn't any less of it. In a theatre, if someone occupies a seat, there's one less seat that could be sold.
Actually, theatres almost always keep a few extra seats to better accomodate those in groups.
That's why it's illegal to sneak in--the theatre loses the ability to sell that seat. Theoretically, there's no loss to the theatre if someone sneaks in after the movies starts who wouldn't have paid anyway. This is, in fact, a pricing model being worked on by the Easyjet folks in the UK--selling last minute tickets for less (or more, if demand is high) as the time of the movie gets closer.
Sounds exactly like the reason it's illegal to copy an mp3. The copyright holder loses the ability to sell that mp3. Theoretically, there's no loss to the copyright holder if someone copies an mp3 and wouldn't have paid anyway.
Copying music, if we are to use the analogy of sneaking into a theatre, is like sneaking into a theatre with an infinite number of seats, which are all the best seat in the house.
Like I said before, most theatres intentionally leave extra seats available, so it's quite similar to there being an infinite number of seats.
And if I posted something critical and not very flattering, but true about a company? They could somehow claim DMCA and get that info as well, makes for fine harrasment.
How is it harrassment to get information?
Or what if I worked for Delta and posted an anonymous comment on some message board expressing my dissatisfaction with the cuts on the line while the higher ups get bonuses.
You should have used encryption.
All of a sudden I get the crappy hours, replacing toilets and getting a drug test every other day.
Comparisons with shoplifting are bogus, and you know it--shoplifting is actual theft, and was a criminal offense without the retail having to buy laws to make it one.
Some comparisons between shoplifting and copyright infringement are bogus, but I don't think this one is. If you take a poll asking people if they think copyright infringement should be illegal, the vast majority are going to say that they believe it should be. Even on Slashdot I suspect the majority of people support copyright laws. Sure, some people justify it by talking about how they're only trying it out and they'll buy it, but the RIAA isn't going after downloaders, it's going after distributors.
The others have nothing to do with the recording industry, either, but at least don't involve actual theft, as opposed to copyright infringement.
Nothing to do with the recording industry? Of course not. I can't compare something to itself.
What about movie theatres? People sneak into movie theatres. If the theatres cracked down and started suing those people, do you think people would start boycotting the movie theatres? Why is it that so many more people use Kazaa than sneak into movie theatres? It's really simple, because your chances of getting caught are much higher when you sneak into a movie theatre.
People want others to get parking tickets. They don't want to get any themselves. It's the same as music. People want others to pay for music. They don't want to pay for it themselves. This is exactly why we have laws.
After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank.
I doubt it. Most people already have it ingrained in their heads that copyright infringement is stealing. Sales are going to tank no more than they do against a book store who sues someone for shoplifting, or against a cable company which sues someone for using a decoder box, or against a GPLed product author who sues someone for not distributing source code. Did we stop using Slashdot when they threatened to sue AlterSlash?
You can't undercut Kazaa by lowering prices. Kazaa is virtually free, and without any law enforcement it would be even more free time-wise. The only way the RIAA can compete with Kazaa is by driving up the costs of using Kazaa. They can do this by filling the network with looped crap, and they can do it by reducing the number of uploaders through threats of lawsuits. Remember, as the number of uploaders goes down the looped crap goes up as a percentage.
Then "official" sources of music will once again be a more luxurious product than kazaa (which is a freaking bitch to use btw, one can't but conclude the price is a LOT over the top).
Kazaa is a bitch to use precisely because of the things the RIAA has been doing. If napster were still around it would be a cinch to use by now. If the RIAA weren't filling up Kazaa with looped crap it would be much more useful. If the RIAA weren't threatening large traders, you'd be able to get much better transfer rates most of the time. Now the RIAA is taking the next logical step. They're never going to "win" completely, but they can drive up the costs in terms of inconveniences to the point where the only people trading are those who wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
Slashdot is mainly a site for complainers. I've said myself that they should go after the people and not the technology, but on an article like this I'd just get drown out by the others or marked down as a troll. Some of it is probably actual inconsistency, but it's mostly just slashdot moderation rewarding complainers by modding them up.
Even your own post only made it because it was complaining about the complainers. If you had simply said that the RIAA was doing the right thing by going after people instead of technology, you could expect Flamebait or Troll.
Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email.
Kind of like subscribing to slashdot.
Seriously, you're making it sound like it's a bad thing. How much spam do you think president@whitehouse.gov gets? This isn't obfuscation, it's replacing a system with zero accountability with one with a bit more accountability. Considering it's the government doing this it borders on genius compared to solution I'd expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is not offering the full text online. They are offering short passages from the full text based on full text searches. I'm sure if you try to search for "the" or make too many searches on the same book during too short a period of time your request will be denied.
Perhaps not. Or perhaps we'd just have a lot more hardware companies supporting Linux directly, instead of making us jump through hoops reverse engineering drivers.
It's a chicken and egg problem. You need drivers to get users, but once you have users you'll get the drivers.
The article specifically cites 50,000,000
The article says "how can 50 million people (over 200 million worldwide) be wrong?" It doesn't say what those 50 million people have done, and it certainly doesn't explain its methodology of arriving at that number.
Now if you're saying that I haven't personally researched the numbers, and relied on the statistics cited by the expert author, you're right.
You have not relied on statistics cited by an expert author. That is not a statistic. It is a rhetorical question, which by the way assumes something incorrect (50 million people most certainly can be wrong).
I've [you've] applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA.
I'm going to torture an analogy here--that's like saying the only travelers threatened by terrorists are the ones whose planes blew up. Everyone who files is threatened.
Certainly not everyone. I have used a P2P network in the past. But I am not threatened by the RIAA. And I'm certainly not going to stop buying CDs from them, since I already stopped several years ago.
Similarly, those using file sharing are all threatened even though the RIAA only has the resources to sue a few.
I agree with you that everyone in the class of people who are being sued by the RIAA are being threatened, not only those who are actually sued. But there are many outside of that class. Those who no longer use the P2P networks. Those who only trade legitimate files. Those who only trade bootlegs. Those who only trade non-RIAA music. Those who only trade porn or software or other non-music. Those who only download. Those outside the United States.
And then of those who are left, not all of them will reduce the number of CDs they buy. Some, like myself, got fed up with the RIAA and stopped buying CDs years ago (that might be why they're using P2P in the first place). Some will be convinced that they were stealing and will simply stop doing so now that the free-for-all is over (yes, I disagree that copyright infringement is stealing, but that doesn't mean that some people won't believe that anyway). Yes, some will reduce the number of CDs they sell. Some will stop buying CDs completely. But my gut tells me this last number will be very low. After all, the RIAA has done plenty of things for us to hate them about already in the past. I doubt this one thing is going to change peoples' opinions of it.
So you say that filesharing has legal purposes in a substantial number of cases? I agree!
Sure. Of course it does.
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Again, you haven't shown this to not be the case. And, though a guess, it certainly isn't a wild-assed one.
You're right. I haven't proven you wrong. I can't. All I can do is offer anecdotes and analogies. I certainly believe that your one fewer CD in the next decade average is inaccurate. Personally I feel that the number of CDs people will buy will probably go up because of this, not down.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
Again, you're saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members.
No, I'm saying of all the people who have ever used P2P, most don't currently regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm not saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members, though that probably is the case if you consider that bootlegs are generally not copyrighted by the record companies.
But you haven't shown the numbers are misapplied.
You've applied the number of people who have ever used P2P networks to the number of people who are being threatened by the RIAA. That's a misapplication. Further, you never even bothered to back up the number of people who have ever used P2P networks.
Just realize that you have given absolutely no support to your assertion that "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank."
And I've given plenty of assertion. Either 10,000,000 (your number) or 50,000,000 people use file sharing, according to different estimates by those who have studied the field extensively for publication. The RIAA has declared war publicly on these people, either by proxy (downloaders) or directly (uploaders).
Having used file sharing at least once in your life is not equivalent to downloading or uploading files copyrighted by RIAA members.
Either number is a substantial segment of the market.
Only if there is a significant overlap between the people who illegally use P2P and those who actually buy CDs. You have not shown this to be the case.
Even if each of these people on average are swayed to by one less CD in the next decade, the sales are "really going to tank."
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Can I say with absolute certainty what the result of their actions will be? No. But neither can you, and the numbers don't look good for the RIAA.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
5 or 6 people was obviously an exaggeration. As for pulling numbers from thin air, do you have any numbers published by experts or journalists about how many people will be alienated by this? Obviously we can only speculate. But it seems you're not interested in discussing this any more. Perhaps you were just trolling me along in the first place. Just realize that you have given absolutely no support to your assertion that "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank."
We're picking nits over numbers in the same order of magnitude. 10E6 or 50E6 is still a hell of a lot of people.
Sure, if you count every person who has ever used Kazaa, it's a lot of people. Now if you restrict it to those who regularly trade RIAA copyrighted material on Kazaa, the numbers go way way down. If you leave only the ones who are truly threatened by the RIAA's legal tactics, now the numbers are barely recognizable. Now subtract the ones who already believe that copyright infringement is wrong. Now subtract from those people the ones who wouldn't have bothered buying CDs anyway. There aren't many people left who are being alienated.
And the RIAA's actions aren't just alienating the "felon" uploaders--you think the people who can't find their out of print material because the chilling effect aren't going to be upset, too?
I'm not sure exactly what material you're talking about. Songs copyrighted by RIAA-affiliated record companies which are no longer being distributed? Do you really the RIAA is going to go after people trading those songs? I have to admit, I'm not very familiar with such songs, so I don't know whether or not they're even being traded on Kazaa in the first place. Are they? And what kinds of numbers are we talking about here? 5 or 6 people?
Because if you cut the hours that an employee in profession X can work, and there are no more qualified X'ers in the economy, then less of X gets done.
I thought it would just mean that more people would get qualified for profession X. OK, sure, there's going to be a transition period, but that's just an implementation detail.
If you restrict the amount of X that gets done, it has a knock-on effect onto Y and Z too.
Even if this is true, which is an arguable point, how is getting less of X, Y, and Z done equivalent to failure?
I mean, OK, I agree that a maximum work week wouldn't be a legitimate thing for a government to force upon people. But that's a lot different from saying it would be a bad thing, or that it wouldn't work. It would be a bad thing for those who want to work hard most of the time and live extravagantly the rest. It would be a good thing for those who'd rather work less and enjoy life more, though perhaps not as extravagantly.
So, the result is that a lot of extra latency is introduced into the economy, slowing everything down.
Perhaps if it's strictly enforced. But surely temporary exceptions could be made.
This increases unemployment, because less work being done means less demand for supporting work to be done, and so on.
If it increases unemployment, then you've set the maximum too high. Lower the max and spread out the people even more.
Actually, I don't think this is a bad idea.
Personally I'd prefer 10 or 20 hours. But then you'd have to raise the minimum wage. $50-100 a week is not exactly something one can reasonably live off.
The idea was that if you restrict the numbers of hours people worked, the companies would be forced to hire more people. That might work in an economy where people are interchangeable - for example, unskilled or semi-skilled labourers can move freely from farm to factory. Unfortunately, it can't work in a modern economy in which workers are specialists.
Umm, maybe it's supposed to be obvious, but... Why not?
Rather than reducing unemployment, it reduced economic activity across the board.
This happened in France and Germany, so you claim. But two examples hardly allow someone to conclude that something "can't work," especially when there were millions of other factors involved in each of the examples.
1) 50 million people is not most of them.
2) There are not 50 million users trading illegal files on P2P networks. Maybe 10 million. Maybe.
3) Downloading is not a felony. Distributing is. Most users download but do not distribute.
I didn't introduce the analogies.
Yeah, I did.
The point is that the RIAA is creating ill-will by threating the entire next generation of its members' customers.
They're not threatening the entire next generation of their members' customers. Only the ones who are felons.
And by saying that the scarcity of theatre seats is not based on natural law, you're saying that there exists a theatre with infinite seats?
Sure, the universe is a theatre with infinite seats.
I never said the analogy was perfect. However, you made the following assertion: "After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank." I fail to see how you have tied the difference between the two to the flaw in the analogy. After all, every analogy has some flaw in it somewhere.
The scarcity of theatre seats is based on natural law, the scarcity of digital media on man-made constraints that are naturally overcome.
The scarcity of theatre seats is not based on natural law. There are some aspects of it which have been forced into such a situation, but you're not paying $8 for a seat in a building, you're paying $8 for the rights to watch a film.
How is it harrassment to get information?
It's not, but once they know who I am they could harrass me based on the info they got.
So? You want to ban information just because it might be used in a slightly annoying manner? I don't get it.
Uh...yeah...for a line workder at Delta as in my example, I'm sure they will be griping on 3DES message boards.
I stand by my assertion. This doesn't scare me at all. Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that some theoretical person could in theory be scared by such a thing, but I'm not one of those theoretical people. But then again, if I'm dissatisfied with my employer I'm going to speak to my manager and/or quit. I'm not going to hide behind some Anonymous Coward account and post it to the internet. I'm tempted to say that anyone who does that shit deserves to be fired.
When someone copies something, there isn't any less of it. In a theatre, if someone occupies a seat, there's one less seat that could be sold.
Actually, theatres almost always keep a few extra seats to better accomodate those in groups.
That's why it's illegal to sneak in--the theatre loses the ability to sell that seat. Theoretically, there's no loss to the theatre if someone sneaks in after the movies starts who wouldn't have paid anyway. This is, in fact, a pricing model being worked on by the Easyjet folks in the UK--selling last minute tickets for less (or more, if demand is high) as the time of the movie gets closer.
Sounds exactly like the reason it's illegal to copy an mp3. The copyright holder loses the ability to sell that mp3. Theoretically, there's no loss to the copyright holder if someone copies an mp3 and wouldn't have paid anyway.
Copying music, if we are to use the analogy of sneaking into a theatre, is like sneaking into a theatre with an infinite number of seats, which are all the best seat in the house.
Like I said before, most theatres intentionally leave extra seats available, so it's quite similar to there being an infinite number of seats.
And if I posted something critical and not very flattering, but true about a company? They could somehow claim DMCA and get that info as well, makes for fine harrasment.
How is it harrassment to get information?
Or what if I worked for Delta and posted an anonymous comment on some message board expressing my dissatisfaction with the cuts on the line while the higher ups get bonuses.
You should have used encryption.
All of a sudden I get the crappy hours, replacing toilets and getting a drug test every other day.
Guess you'll be smarter next time, now won't you?
Sure, that analogy works perfectly, for movie theatres with an infinite number of seats.
So as long as the theatre is has seats available the analogy holds?
Comparisons with shoplifting are bogus, and you know it--shoplifting is actual theft, and was a criminal offense without the retail having to buy laws to make it one.
Some comparisons between shoplifting and copyright infringement are bogus, but I don't think this one is. If you take a poll asking people if they think copyright infringement should be illegal, the vast majority are going to say that they believe it should be. Even on Slashdot I suspect the majority of people support copyright laws. Sure, some people justify it by talking about how they're only trying it out and they'll buy it, but the RIAA isn't going after downloaders, it's going after distributors.
The others have nothing to do with the recording industry, either, but at least don't involve actual theft, as opposed to copyright infringement.
Nothing to do with the recording industry? Of course not. I can't compare something to itself.
What about movie theatres? People sneak into movie theatres. If the theatres cracked down and started suing those people, do you think people would start boycotting the movie theatres? Why is it that so many more people use Kazaa than sneak into movie theatres? It's really simple, because your chances of getting caught are much higher when you sneak into a movie theatre.
Your real name, your address, your phone number, and who knows what else.
I know what else. Whatever I gave the ISP in the first place.
Why do I care if the RIAA knows the stuff that Verizon already knows? Sorry, this doesn't scare me at all.
People want others to get parking tickets. They don't want to get any themselves. It's the same as music. People want others to pay for music. They don't want to pay for it themselves. This is exactly why we have laws.
After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank.
I doubt it. Most people already have it ingrained in their heads that copyright infringement is stealing. Sales are going to tank no more than they do against a book store who sues someone for shoplifting, or against a cable company which sues someone for using a decoder box, or against a GPLed product author who sues someone for not distributing source code. Did we stop using Slashdot when they threatened to sue AlterSlash?
You can't undercut Kazaa by lowering prices. Kazaa is virtually free, and without any law enforcement it would be even more free time-wise. The only way the RIAA can compete with Kazaa is by driving up the costs of using Kazaa. They can do this by filling the network with looped crap, and they can do it by reducing the number of uploaders through threats of lawsuits. Remember, as the number of uploaders goes down the looped crap goes up as a percentage.
Then "official" sources of music will once again be a more luxurious product than kazaa (which is a freaking bitch to use btw, one can't but conclude the price is a LOT over the top).
Kazaa is a bitch to use precisely because of the things the RIAA has been doing. If napster were still around it would be a cinch to use by now. If the RIAA weren't filling up Kazaa with looped crap it would be much more useful. If the RIAA weren't threatening large traders, you'd be able to get much better transfer rates most of the time. Now the RIAA is taking the next logical step. They're never going to "win" completely, but they can drive up the costs in terms of inconveniences to the point where the only people trading are those who wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
Slashdot is mainly a site for complainers. I've said myself that they should go after the people and not the technology, but on an article like this I'd just get drown out by the others or marked down as a troll. Some of it is probably actual inconsistency, but it's mostly just slashdot moderation rewarding complainers by modding them up.
Even your own post only made it because it was complaining about the complainers. If you had simply said that the RIAA was doing the right thing by going after people instead of technology, you could expect Flamebait or Troll.
You could try to claim fair use. But I don't think the RIAA is going after downloaders anyway. There are far too many defenses they could use.
Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email.
Kind of like subscribing to slashdot.
Seriously, you're making it sound like it's a bad thing. How much spam do you think president@whitehouse.gov gets? This isn't obfuscation, it's replacing a system with zero accountability with one with a bit more accountability. Considering it's the government doing this it borders on genius compared to solution I'd expect.